I received notice from Amazon.com that America Unearthed host Scott Wolter’s new book, Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: Mysteries of the Hooked X®, has been delayed for a month. The publisher had planned to release the book on June 1, and Wolter had been promoting the book’s publication in radio appearances. No reason has been given for the delay. Obviously, after Scott Wolter and A+E Television Networks, the parent company of H2, the channel that broadcasts America Unearthed and owns its trademarks, spent so much time and effort accusing me of infringing on their trademarks, I of course wanted to know whether A+E Television Networks (AETN) applied the same scrutiny to Scott Wolter’s own products. So I’ve been pressing AETN to state definitively whether they endorse Wolter’s work the same way that they lend their name, trademarks, and authority to books by the casts of American Pickers, Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, and other programs. Those individuals’ books carry the History name or logo and are sold in the History online store while From Akhenaten lacks the History imprimatur.

Last night, after hours, AETN finally released a statement, about three weeks after I asked them to clarify. Over the past three weeks, their representative had told me it required more research and more time to determine the company’s position on Wolter’s work. Here’s AETN’s official comment, in its entirety:

As you know, Mr. Wolter hosts the AETN series America Unearthed on the H2 network. Although we wish Mr. Wolter well on his other endeavors, none of Mr. Wolter’s activities besides the America Unearthed series, including his books, are authorized, sponsored by, or affiliated with AETN.

Despite repeated requests, AETN will not tell me whether they have requested Wolter issue a disclaimer similar to the one they required of me to ensure audiences are not confused about his use of the America Unearthed name, his book’s graphic design similar to the program’s, or the substantial similarity between the content of his book and the TV series. Contrast this with what Wolter said on the radio just last month in promoting his new book:

I give History Channel and H2 a lot of credit because I’ve sat down with, you know, uh, the head of the network, and I looked him in the eye, and I said ‘You guys, you know, this isn’t for the faint of heart. You know, we’re going to be hitting people between the eyes and we’re going to hit them hard. I mean when you start talking about people’s faith, about Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and all of this. I mean this is heavy stuff, and it’s very disturbing to many people, and we’re not trying to offend anybody, we’re not trying to … I just want to know what happened. That’s where I’m coming from.’ And I said, ‘Look, it’s all hands on deck. You’re either all in or you’re not. Are you guys in?’ And they said, ‘We’re in.’

They’re “in,” just not insofar as it requires them to be responsible for anything Wolter actually says in any legal sense or in any way that involves actually supporting him or his work. Now here’s a fun fact about the level of attention and support the network actually provides to Wolter and his crew. At the Realscreen West conference last week, the head of programming development at H2, Paul Cabana, explained to aspiring producers that experience was no barrier to getting a program on his network, using America Unearthed as an example. As RealScreen reported:

He also told the crowd that it is not always the case that you need a strong track record of producing or a West Coast agent to pitch to cable nets, and recounted an encouraging story for the Realscreen West audience, explaining that “two years ago at a Realscreen event, a husband and wife couple… came up and pitched to me.” Despite their lack of track record, he said, the couple landed a commission for their show America Unearthed, which went on to become H2’s top rated series. In January, it was renewed for a second season. “So it does happen,” Cabana said.

We have two choices here. Either Cabana is intentionally lying about the fact that the History Channel, the parent of H2, had been working with the “husband and wife couple,” Andrew and Maria Awes, on high-rated documentaries since 2009, or he simply pays no attention to the people he works with. The Awes, the owners of Committee Films, produced Holy Grail in America (with Scott Wolter) and Who Really Discovered America for History in 2009 and 2010, and both programs were (a) highly rated and (b) sold in the History.com store as History exclusive programs. These shows were intentionally designed to serve as pilots and practice runs for a future series, according to production documents I obtained from Minnesota Film and Television: “The depth of this topic goes beyond just one film and could spawn subsequent films, or potentially a series. We are working on further developing those ideas at this time,” Maria and Andrew Awes wrote in 2008. As you know, last month I spoke with a History spokesperson who provided some information for attribution, some on background, and some in a nebulous space of ambiguous utility. Since I discovered from Wolter that they essentially lied to me, I’m not really feeling very interested in honoring the distinctions to protect their lies. Therefore, I’ll just let you know that the History spokesperson was taken aback when I mentioned that the Awes of America Unearthed were the same people involved in the earlier documentaries. Apparently, no one at the network had paid the least bit of attention to what was going on, and they had no idea that the documentaries and the new series were related, or that they were part of a consistent effort by Wolter and the Awes to promote a Templar-Sinclair-Holy Bloodline rewrite of American history. I asked how no one could know who was producing these shows, and the spokesperson said that 2009 was so many years ago that frankly there was no way to keep track or to remember. So, Cabana’s probably right that he thought that some yokels from the sticks came up and pitched him a unique, hot idea out of the blue. He was also completely unaware his network had already done it, to high ratings, with the same people, twice before. All of that explains why AETN has distanced itself from Wolter’s work. The company has no interest in the content of the show, only its ability to make money. The actual content is a liability so far as they are concerned, and the less content there is the happier they are. Take that as a lesson, kids: If you have an agenda to push, TV will let you do it because they won’t be paying enough attention to the content of their marketing vehicles to care. Perhaps that’s why History is launching a new program starring a right wing conspiracy theorist who believes Obama is a “Kenyan-Muslim,” pharmaceuticals are designed to turn Americans into complacent zombies, and that Democrats are planning a violent purge/coup. History called this upstanding citizen, Eric “Mancow” Muller, a person who “embodies the values and the spirit of the heartland of America” in their press release. Thanks to you, A+E Television Networks, and your fellow media companies, that is now all too true.

The History Channel couldn't care less about content (except to not be liable for it) and just cares about profits.

Wolter just writes his self published, egotistical nonsense. Who would want to be associated with him.

Thanks for persisting Jason. You're a wonderful writer and one day I hope you are adequately compensated for your extraordinary talent.

BTW-I ordered five more of YOUR books!!! .

Reply

Luis, Lozano

4/7/2015 03:31:01 pm

Wolater reminds me of how Hitler sought to rwrite German history to prove his theories of Aryan Supremacy. His show is mostly about European claims to America before Columbus. He either ignores science and history or he doesn't know what real science is. His shows also are similar to the Ancient Astronauts and aliens of years before. It is only entertainment.

Reply

Dan D

6/11/2013 12:08:58 pm

" none of Mr. Wolter’s activities besides the America Unearthed series, including his books, are authorized, sponsored by, or affiliated with AETN."

Wonder if Wolter's new book cover will now include:

This book is not produced by, endorsed by, or affiliated with A+E Networks, Committee Films, or America Unearthed."

Well played sir, well played.

Reply

Poker Jim

6/11/2013 02:38:13 pm

Again..."all hands on deck" to "all in"...is he a sailor or are we playing Texas Hold'em?

Reply

Tripps

6/11/2013 02:41:02 pm

Call me nuts but I love logic and I love Wolter and how he inspires creative out of the box thinking

Lots of you guys still stuck on the short bus

Reply

Varika

6/11/2013 05:54:19 pm

Dear sir, I do not think that word (logic) means what you think it means. One who loves logic cannot love Wolter's illogical flights of purest fantasy. At least not as anything but something to laugh at.

PS.--if we're on the short bus, take a look in the mirror and see who's driving it, sir.

Reply

Daniel

6/29/2014 10:31:37 am

Scott Walter as a geologist just looks at the hard facts. The archaeologists make things up. My hats off to Scott Walter For his truthfulness and dedication.

Reply

Tripps

6/11/2013 03:32:19 pm

Haha i am reading your older posts, so glad wolter and america unearthed lawyers took it to you

Jason colavito has spent a year bashing wolter online you had it coming bro

Wont be waiting with baited breath for the blowhards on here to challenge and present to him a real case

Tara Jordan

6/11/2013 04:39:10 pm

Biscuit Boy.The only thing I fear, is facing "the sweet smell" of Nocturnal emission from Wolter`s fanboys

Varika

6/11/2013 05:59:24 pm

Dear Tripps--if Scott Wolter wants to attempt a lawsuit against this blog or commenters, he is going to be laughed out of court. Defamation requires the things said to be UNTRUE, sir, AND that said comments to be substantially harmful. UNFORTUNATELY, neither can be applied in this case.

Keith

6/28/2013 08:35:33 pm

You are very clearly not a very intelligent person. I wonder, do you call yourself "Tripps" because you fall down a lot?

Tara Jordan

6/11/2013 04:30:52 pm

Scott Wolter is grateful for having an inexhaustible supply of intellectual midgets like yourself. Wolter enjoys a 6 digit salary,while most of his audience of congenital idiots rely on food stamps.Social Darwinism rules.....

Reply

Steve

6/13/2013 03:59:49 pm

You forgot the fecal reference in this reply, Scat Girl. Allow me to help you with the re-wording.

"Wolter enjoys a 6 digit salary,while most of his audience of [fecal sandwich eating] idiots rely on food stamps."

Tara Jordan

6/12/2013 01:30:43 am

Good luck for taking people like myself to court, I am not under American jurisdiction, not even under European jurisdiction

Reply

Graham

6/11/2013 06:31:07 pm

Actually the more interesting question lies in the remark that "...the spokesperson said that 2009 was so many years ago that frankly there was no way to keep track or to remember."

Surely the network would keep a record of what they had released over previous years, I certainly don't think that four years would be too far back to call up a program listing.

Reply

Jim

6/12/2013 06:49:41 am

The irony that a company whose assets include the History channel and H2 considers four years too long of a time span over which to recall detailed information was not lost on me either. Perhaps this is why their shows only speculate on history; after all, who can remember anything that happened decades or centuries ago!

Reply

Varika

6/12/2013 10:36:29 am

Particularly as they still REPLAY programs from 2009 and earlier, one notes. It's ridiculous to say "there's no way to keep track or remember."

Makes me wonder if the IRS should do a full audit. I mean. They can't possibly keep track of their finances for the past 4 years, right?

Let me explain a bit: A cable channel like History has a management staff of only around 100-150 people (many of whom are interns and low-level staff), and the turnover is heavy. Every year, most of the low-level staff will turn over. Each time the network changes direction, they clean house at the upper levels, too. So, between 2009 and 2013, institutional memory disappears as the executives take on new positions in response to the network's changing needs. Plus, new H2 people wouldn't necessarily know what History did prior to the network's launch.

Obviously, they have records of their business dealings and could have looked it up if they wanted to, but the spokesperson merely meant that the people in charge today weren't invovled then and thus weren't really aware of the people they had worked with four years earlier.

It sounds weird from the outside, but it's how the cable TV business works. One year is a long time, let alone four.

Reply

Graham

6/13/2013 05:36:30 am

Thanks Jason for clearing that one up. The sitation reminds me of a satiric story that in an issue of Analog during the 1980s (I've forgotten the plot and author(s)).

In it attempts are made to launch a SF series which fail because the 'number' is wrong.

It is then discovered that the networks have categorized (rated) all plot elements by their effects on the target audience with numbers '1' and '2' being sex and violence respectively and that the target audience are those who are of below average intelligence (Because they are more affected by advertising.)

In response to this the people behind the SF show hit the networks with subliminal advertising that causes audiences to associate the biggest advertiser (Toilet paper) with dried corn husks...

Shawn Flynn

6/11/2013 11:40:51 pm

I saw that Salon piece on their site first and thought, "When did Jason start writing for Salon?".

Reply

Uncle Ron

6/12/2013 12:26:30 pm

The danger in the blather being promulgated by Wolter, et al. is not that we will someday wake up and find that the President has signed over large portions of the U.S. to the Sinclair family; rather, it is it’s abetting of the destruction of critical thinking which seems to be rampant in this country today. “Cherry picking” ones data, ignoring evidence which refutes ones position, and creating “facts” out of whole cloth do not create truth. Disregarding facts supported by scientific investigation in order to cling to a romantic idea is irrational. One cannot (or should not) believe something simply because it makes one “feel good”.

History, H2, Scott Wolter, and their ilk are contributing to the anti-intellectual/anti-academic movement which has been brewing for decades, i.e. the “truth” is whatever you want it to be – facts be damned. It is fun to speculate about mysteries such as UFO’s and ancient ruins and “suspend disbelief” while reading creative fiction (I am a big fan of science fiction myself). It is entirely another thing to credulously believe unsupported, romantic, alternative explanations for artifacts and hard data when scientifically demonstrable (and usually prosaic) explanations are available.

To a degree, this is an outgrowth of the 1960’s and ‘70’s counter-culture which suspected all authority and didn’t believe anyone over 30. However, while poking one’s finger in society’s eye over social issues may lead to resolving social/political inequities, increase liberty, and make a better life for everyone, a similar disregard for empirical scientific truth will be disastrous.

Further, the juvenile level of attacks and ripostes aimed at debunkers and alternative believers alike on this blog demonstrate that there is much more than simple academic disagreement going on here. The true scientist knows that his ego has no place in an investigation – finding the truth is all that matters. It is an indication of how much damage has already been done that so many people willingly believe such complete bullshit.

Reply

Bill

6/12/2013 02:31:34 pm

The "true scientist" you refer to is an idealized figure. Scientist are people and are just as prone to bouts of egotism and jealousy as anyone else. An established scientist does not usually embrace new discoveries that invalidate the research on which a career was built. While the scientific method eventually succeeds, it sometimes has to fight through a labyrinth of resistance and denial that wouldn't exist if egos weren't involved.

Reply

Joe

6/12/2013 04:13:59 pm

Bill,

you raise a very good point, that some scientist can be defensive about their research and their published writing. But this is also not a reason to give any validity to Mr. Wolter's work. He does not utilize any form of a true scientific method. On all of his shows he is constantly leaping to conclusions to fit into his overall thesis. As being a unique and differing theory from the established archeological work done by the majority of professional archeologists and historians the burden of proof is on Mr Wolter to provide strong research and evidence to verify his theory. He should expect the doubting and negative response from established professionals. It is also expected that Mr. Wolter is even look for evidence to disprove his own theory.

But I do not think he is trying to get a serious look at his work. He is much more effective to sell his TV show and books to just create the idea of doubt on established research. All he has to say is "what if" or weave an interesting story about conspiracy or mystery to grab the general audience's attention. He can complain all he wants about the "academic world" not taking him seriously, but I would think that if he really put his work up for peer review that he would have to admit how paper thin his work is.

steve

6/12/2013 04:24:46 pm

Where's Crabby to defend ALL academics and scientists??!!

Bill, are you saying that scientists can bring bias into their research?

You wrote, "While the scientific method eventually succeeds..."
I suspect it's safe to say that occasionally it doesn't succeed precisely because of the "labyrinth of resistance and denial" that you mentioned?

Tara, this is where you make another of your strange fecal comments.

Bill

6/13/2013 07:12:08 am

to Steve

Yes, personal bias can be brought into research. Wolters is a prime example of this. He pick and chooses the data he wants to use, intentionally ignoring anything that invalidates his desired results and distorting information to support the narrative he is promoting.

It's fine to "think outside the box", but when you have to completely rewrite history, ignore massive amounts of data from numerous fields of research, and make claims of academic and government conspiracies to hide the "truth", you are not thinking outside the box. You have instead sealed yourself into the box to keep any information you either don't want to or can't address from get in.

Your comment about science occasionally not succeeding because of egos ignores one of the fundamental characteristics of science: It is an additive process based on testable results. Egos may delay the advancement of an idea, but as supportive data are developed and objections are addressed valid new ideas become accepted and egos that steadfastly refuse to accept proven ideas find themselves reduced to footnotes in history. One of the things that differentiates Wolters is that he won't provide answers to all the problems found with his theory and it's supporting data. Real researchers have to do this all the time and they do it without resorting to the court of public opinion to validate their theories.

Uncle Ron

6/13/2013 09:32:09 am

Bill, I agree. Nonetheless, we should all strive to be "true scientists" and particularly, not to succumb to "juvenile... attacks and ripostes".

BTW: Not that it matters but I should have placed my last sentence of the last paragraph at the end of the next-to-last paragraph.

Tara Jordan

6/13/2013 06:00:27 am

Uncle Ron :"Further,the juvenile level of attacks and ripostes aimed at debunkers and alternative believers alike on this blog demonstrate that there is much more than simple academic disagreement going on here. The true scientist knows that his ego has no place in an investigation".
Show me your PHD & (or) academic credentials professor Uncle Ron,I might consider feeling "intellectually inferior".

Reply

Uncle Ron

6/13/2013 09:18:12 am

I rest my case.

Tara Jordan

6/13/2013 09:40:10 am

Rest your case on what?.Put your money where your mouth is, & show me how "intellectually superior" you really are.What are your academic credentials,How many foreign languages are you actually fluent in?.Pretending to be utterly smart is not good enough.How entertaining the pseudo intellectual wanker who toils in obscurity....

Reply

Bill

6/13/2013 11:53:38 am

Is your argument that having a Phd or being a polyglot excuses boorish behavior? It would be an interesting thesis to try and defend.

For instance, consider this wording - "Pretending to be utterly smart is not good enough.How entertaining the pseudo intellectual [fecal sandwich eater] who toils in obscurity...."

There, isn't that more to your liking?

Tara Jordan

6/13/2013 12:55:07 pm

Bill.You seem like an educated individual,you should know that the comments section of a Blog has nothing to with ethical compass or moral high ground.Individually,we all have the potential of acting & behaving in a boorish or juvenile manner.
Milan Kundera said :"maturity is the ability to detach yourself from symbolism".
Don't judge a book by its cover.

Reply

Steve

6/13/2013 03:52:31 pm

You missed it again, scat girl. Try this - "Individually,we all have the potential of acting & behaving [as fecal sandwich eaters]."

Bill

6/13/2013 06:26:32 pm

Just checking. I still think it would be a fun thesis to try and defend. The scientific justification for acting like an ass when interacting with your perceived lessers.

Tara Jordan

6/13/2013 08:52:46 pm

Steve. Are you Steve St Clair,her special bloodline majesty?

stan brown

1/3/2014 08:01:23 am

About 30 years or so ago, "BC America" was published. (I forget the author.) That book described & provided photos of artifacts which suggested peoples including phoenetians were landing on N. American shores well before Columbus. Clearly Vikings landed & established a settlement in Nova Scotia hundreds of years before Columbus. Later, historians uncovered evidence of Irish explorers
reaching New Jersey. Within the past 20 yrs, Egyptian researchers found a minor Pharoh's tomb with clay pot votive offerings that included residual tobacco & cocoa. The tomb was dated about 3000 years ago. Both tobacco & cocoa originated in central and North America. Clearly Egypt was trading in the Americas 1000's of years ago. Scott Wolpert is not the last nor the first researcher to uncover evidence of this commerce. So why are the fundamentalists calling him names? Could it be that they are not interested facts not origimating in the bible? I take the Bible as a history of the Jews. It is not a book of science and it is not a history of the world but some right wing religious fanatics are taking it not only as a book of morals, but as things it never was. These people are not interested in facts, they are only interested in their interpretation of the bible and no one elses. They resort to shameful and unchristian name calling when they have neither facts nor logic on their side. Since their only source of info is the bible,their cannot integrate researched, documentable facts to determine what parts of the bible are pure myth. The "great flood" & Noah's ark ,e.g., are taken directly from the Legend of Gilgamesh, a Summarian story 2 - 3 thousand years earlier than the old testament. Far too many right wing people of faith believe that if it isn't in the bible it is't true or real. Shame on them for not being open to the whole of God's creation (including the sciences, math, & verifiable history.

Reply

Ginger Wentworth

6/16/2013 06:13:38 am

I'd like to comment but I'm too scared.

Reply

Keith

6/28/2013 09:10:18 pm

"The academic justification for acting like an ass when dealing with your perceived lessers"

I think that would be an interesting thesis, and I think that both sides in this debate are guilty of pretty much the same thing. It goes a little something like this:

Academics Stan St. Paul and Sam Wilter invest a lot of their time and effort into presenting a new theory. They are very attached to their theory, since they have spent many years working to prove it. When they present their findings by publishing their article / airing their tv series / releasing their book, fellow academic Jackson Calamuto disagrees. He publishes an article / airs a tv show / releases a book refuting all their hard work.
So far everything is all well and scholarly, but Sam feels frustrated at their years of research being fruitless, and at their conclusions being considered wrong, so he in turn responds to Jackson's article / tv show / book to defend their findings and by extension himself and Stan. This response is a little less scientific, a little more asinine.
Jackson takes their response, and composes his own counterpoint, but by this time he is not alone on his "side"; he has been noticed and joined by Christian Rudolph; a much angrier, potentially more ass-like party. Jackson valiantly sticks to assessing the evidence and the theory, but Christian is more than happy to engage the slightly asinine slant to Sam's response.
Stan and Sam read / watch what both Jackson and Christian have said, and they in turn get more upset, especially at the escalating amounts of ass involved, so they decide to fight fire with fire and respond to both Jackson and Christian like asses.

It is a vicious circle which is driven by scientists' and researchers' (both mainstream and alternative) being too emotionally connected with their work. If Stan didn't care so much about his theory being right, he would never act like an ass defending it. If Christian didn't care so much about Stan's theory being wrong, he would never act like an ass attacking it.
They each perceive the other to be inferior to them since they both think the other was the first to descend to acting like an ass, when in reality they both are, and it is hard to pinpoint who "started it" since neither of them started off doing so.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.